- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 08:41:38 -0700
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Larry Masinter wrote: > > In the good old days when we only used URIs for HREFs > and other kinds of hyperlinking, it was safe to > think of a URI as identifying some kind of communication > endpoint (whether mailto:, telnet:, http:, ftp:, or > the like), and to use the interpretation of a fragment > identifier depended on the data type of the object > retrieved. Here's a new twist: * http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xframes-20020806/ home.xfm#frames(a=one.xhtml,b=two.xhtml,c=three.xhtml) Somehow it bothers me that now fragment identifiers are not addressing parts of resources but configurations of multiple resources...my mental model is that there are a finite (and thus countable) number of "fragments" in a representation (even though there may be an infinite number of addresses for each one). But now I see that XFrames representations can have an infinite number of fragments. -- "When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith -- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk." Congressman James Traficant.
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 11:44:26 UTC